elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jun 25, 2018 12:33:41 GMT
If several million in undrawn funds not identified in the client accounts were actually provided to borrowers by the directors, possibly to unrelated developments, are these still deemed trust assets even though there is not (even an unregulated) agreement between lender and borrower for the use of these funds?
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jun 23, 2018 12:21:51 GMT
Maybe Lendy should have considered lowering their fees for the 2nd charge ( assuming they didn't ), & given a better interest rate to investors .After all it's in everybody's interest for the project to be completed asap. Everybody that is except Lendy of course. I think it’s in Lendy’s interest to have successful, large developments. This was pulled because the borrower could not persuade UN1 holders to give priority to Ly’s 2C leaving the charge unviable against the platform max of 70% ltgdv so this is now being sought from an alternative lender.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jun 21, 2018 12:01:09 GMT
Crikey - this whole saga is starting to make a plot from a John le Carré novel look as simplistic as a storyline from The Magic Roundabout!?
However, as a supporter of RR I cannot deny this looks like damning evidence against them (yet to be proven of course - but there's usually 'no smoke without fire')... More convincing (at least in timing) would be the fines already administered to GC for misconduct in his day to day job as an insolvency practitioner.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jun 19, 2018 22:51:20 GMT
If business profits of, say, 3-400k were taken from the client accounts and traceability compromised would that preclude their use in future loan repayments/recoveries ie if individual lender repayments could not be facilitated by these accounts would this also lead to treatment as a pooled investment?
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jun 19, 2018 22:30:38 GMT
I strongly disagree To a punter it looked as if it was authorised - I certainly do Not have enough expertise to tell one form of authorisation from another and one name of the company from another very similar one. As it looks it is not only me.
Collateral was listed to have interim permission based on the information published on the FCA website and I checked these on a monthly basis.
Was Collateral UK incorporated after FCA interim permissions were granted or do you mean Collateral was also added as a trading name to Regal?
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jun 19, 2018 10:10:11 GMT
I think the valuation could be 10%ish too high based on the comparables I looked at...I'm in for my standard size though. Well done Huddle! More like this please There were two more in the original job lot so cross your fingers
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jun 19, 2018 10:06:12 GMT
At 13:04 yesterday, Lendy responded to my Support Ticket question with " We can confirm that PBL199 is still paying cashback to NEW investments, but not those on the secondary market, which would have already had the bonus paid." I think the last remaining "new" availability probably sold late yesterday afternoon or evening, so the chunky sums invested this morning may be in for a disappointment. Certainly a couple of cashback-paid parts I listed for sale yesterday lunchtime, when the queue was around £110k, are now just £38k back. CB wasn't paid for my original loan parts listed on the SM at the first payment run even though I remained the owner.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jun 16, 2018 0:36:00 GMT
Then compare & contrast to the last RR statement "These investments are entirely secured against the relevant individual properties (& chattel assets) and consequently it was the intention of the Administrator is to distribute the monies in accordance with the relevant loan agreements which each individual had signed up to. Therefore when a loan was concluded and the balance of funds would be received into the Group and payment to the relevant investors would be made accordingly, however, this action cannot be undertaken at present due to the restrictions imposed by the Court." & "Administrator has received over 15 expresses of interest in buying all or part of the Group."
Many were unhappy with RR & their reservations may well have had some validity but RR understood the business model, had the cooperation of the staff/mgmt., had already reconciled all the loans & assets confirming all were in place & were even ready to start returning lenders funds; so all those who supported the FCA court action & BDO appointment need to ask themselves - where are we now & is that a better position than we were in with RR?
The RR rec looked incomplete. The main omission being millions of undrawn funds. There was also no mention of 100,000s allegedly taken by the directors from client funds nor to the apparent obfuscation over using a non-p2p permission from a separate company. The question has also been raised about the misappropriation of lender funds being applied to unrelated projects. It is not the job of UK regulators to overlook potentially illegal activities and allow unregulated parties to manage their own administration without prior notification for a simpler winding up and to protect the directors.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jun 16, 2018 0:04:45 GMT
An update has been released on MT - pretty good news i'd say. A good proportion of capital to be recovered (could have easily been a worse percentage) - and possibly/probably more to come. This is everything that I hoped MT would be able to announce to us, and i'd just like to say a "thank you" to MT for their continued efforts in this recovery. I know that grumbles/complaints make up a lot of posts here, but credit where credits due and all that... Let's not forget that MoneyThing failed to tell us that the borrower had never made a single repayment and therefore, in the total absence of any ongoing risk communication, lenders are facing losses on purchases made until the night before a move into direct default. No 'thank yous' from me for losing more than a 1/4 of my money.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jun 15, 2018 23:50:43 GMT
Hey!!! Don't you dare talk of stock market drops, S&S is the only thing propping up my P2P investments!!! Not sure why some of you talk about 'suited' or not. The fact I fight for every penny (and ask the same to my providers) does not mean I am not successful in investments or that I am scared about them... My average return on S&S is over 10% per year and this is over 10+ years, pretty constant. Also my average return on P2P to be honest has been good, over 10% per year on average over 7 years (10% YS, 9.3% FC, 12% LY, 11% FS, 12% Coll, just some examples ... only on MT I am below 5%...). I am not interested in 'safe' investments. I am interested in committed parters/platform carers that will fight for every pound of recovery as if from that recovery depended their own business existence (and definitely I don't see that aggressive thinking in someone who does not consider useful renegotiating huge fees because this is what the market asks for...). If P2P does not offer this level of involvement anymore, as I start feeling everywhere today (perhaps due to its popularity and lower need to care about lenders), then S&S is definitely the best option (I invest in specific market segments after long research, avoiding as much as possible usa and also uk). Let's hope MT have more success in this recovery. V envious of your 12% on Coll, I’m still waiting to find out if I achieved anywhere near 0%.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jun 15, 2018 20:31:33 GMT
The borrowing proposal is now available to view. ablrate I wonder if you could let us know the purchase price of the property, how much will be spent on the redeeming the lease, and how much will be spent on the refurbishments? I see that the valuation reports have some special assumptions which I'm generally not in favour of as they tend to inflate the value, and the special assumptions may not come to pass (in theory, the loan could default before any refurbishment has been undertaken). It would be helpful if the valuer could comment on the security value without the special assumptions - would that be possible? How are the letting rooms rented out? By the night - hotel style - or weekly / monthly lets to contractors and the like? Particularly as this is shuffling assets between BN directors.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jun 15, 2018 20:30:09 GMT
ablrate , I note that the parent group B***gn***t has in the last few years taken out quite substantial borrowings from a range of P2P/Crowdfunding providers. I had wanted to review their 2017 accounts, but unfortunately due to their group electing to shorten their 2017 accounting period by 1 day recently, the filing deadline on Companies House has been extended by 3 months and so they are not yet available. As you now have several loans relating to the group, have you had any early view of the group's accounts, and is there any comment you can make about the serviceability of the group's overall debt? Great question. (If not already done so) Is it worth adding to the loan's Q&A? Not worth it. I have several unanswered.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jun 7, 2018 13:55:37 GMT
Does anyone know if the £500 per hour is per man hour ? If so that is outrageous. For the senior partner (who will be managing different cases) although there will be more dedicated junior staff doing the leg work at more affordable rates, say from 100/150 upwards
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jun 5, 2018 10:29:44 GMT
CB was due to whoever the loan holder happened to be at drawdown to be paid at the next interest run.
Did everyone who had their loan part up for sale but who retained onwership during this period receive NO cb?
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jun 4, 2018 8:49:36 GMT
You cannot re-constitute sub-100 loan parts per the warning when selling. If your original investment plans have changed just break sales into smaller parts and do not allow part sales. I thought you could if it is a part of a part? If I have 500, and I break it into 400 and leave 100, then 350 of the 400 is sold, the remaining 50 will be cancelled automatically, so can I not then relist the remaining £150 of the original £500 that is left? Choose to sell 400 of 500 loan part and then tick not to allow partial purchases; 400 will sell in one go (willing buyer permitting) and you'll have perfectly sellable 100 left
|
|